motife
01-18-2007, 07:34 PM
Q: John of Milwaukee - Cliff: Do the Packers still hold the rights to Koren Robinson, and if so do you anticipate the Packers will retain his services once again after he serves his suspension.
A: Cliff Christl - John, your question was posted first. We'll start with you. Yes, the Packers hold the rights to Robinson. And if he stays clean, he'll be able to apply for reinstatement two or three weeks into next season. That means he won't be able to participate in training camp. At Mike McCarthy's post-season press conference, he suggested the Packers weren't planning on Robinson for whatever reason. So we'll see. I know some fans thought Robinson was going to be the savior and it was a great signing, but what did he ever accomplish as a receiver before coming to Green Bay? My opinion is that anybody who thinks he's going to make a difference is living in fantasy land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, I know one of your positions is that we should stay with the defensive side of the ball in the draft because we started there last year with Hawk. On the other hand, it is VERY tempting to get Favre another weapon because the playoffs aren't out of the question in the watered-down NFC and it's not out of the question to get on a hot streak in the playoffs as a Wildcard. At the same time, I don't believe Thompson is going to stray too far from his "build with youth through the draft" strategy either. So from what you can determine, what type of offseason moves do you expect the Packers to make (specifically in the 1st round of the draft) or is it too early and Thompson is too unpredictable to tell?
A: Cliff Christl - That's not necessarily my position, but what I think Thompson will do: Build a defense first. Would another weapon help Favre? No doubt. But let's wait and see if Favre returns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave B of Iowa City - Cliff, In reading the JSO season report cards, it seems that one common fault among the Packers Defense is the Linebackers' seeming ineffectiveness defending the pass. Do you think this is because of talent (personnel), inexperience, scheme, or coaching? On the surface, this seems to be a decent young group, but do you think they have the ability to improve in that area, or should they consider letting Barnett move on and rebuilding the group around Hawk?
A: Cliff Christl - No. 1, I don't think it's uncommon for linebackers to get beat in coverage. That's in large part why teams run so much play action: To get linebackers to bite against the run and pass over them. So I'm guessing most teams have the same lament. Barnett and Hawk have more speed than most linebackers and that's a plus. Why would you get rid of one of them? I don't think Poppinga will ever be a cover guy, but if he plays the run well and sits in passing situations, you live with him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: James Walker of Racine - If the Packers go offense in the draft, do we take Lynch, Meachem, or Jarrett? Lynch is projected as the 2nd best RB, but will probably have the best overall career if Peterson isn't durable. Meachem could be for the Pack what Beckum is for the Badgers as a hybrid TE. And Jarrett has nice size and could easily become a playmaking receiver which we don't have beyond Favre getting the ball to Driver on quick slants.
A: Cliff Christl - Most teams at this point probably don't have a handle on what players are likely to be there and what players they'll pick. I surely don't. Quite frankly, I think speculation on what teams are likely to do in the draft is a waste of time at this point. They haven't even held the combine. Any mock draft you see is nothing more than a wild guess. Put some names on a dart board and fire away. You'd have just as much chance of being right as anyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: charlie hayes of fair haven, nj - cliff, indulge me. it's round 1. as gm you have a choice between playmakers of equal ability, a pass catcher and a safety. which way do you go?
A: Cliff Christl - Not many teams draft safeties in the first round. It's just not a priority position. Again, I think it would be a mistake for the Packers to zero in on one position and draft for need. They need great players, regardless of position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry of Chicago - Cliff, Any idea on which RB's in draft are better fits for the "zone blocking" scheme the Pack employs? Seems some highly touted ones might not fit, but not sure if some ran that scheme in college. For example, I know Michigan uses it. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I think great running backs can run in any system. If they can't, they're not likely to be worth the 16th pick. It's just football. It's just vision and instincts. It's not science or medicine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Hi Cliff; The '07 Vikings support your contention that free agency can become a bad deal, especially when you have a bad QB. However, the '96 Packers go against it since the core of that team, besides Favre and Butler, was made up of free agents: Jackson, Bebee, Robinson, Rison, Ron Cox, not to mention the entire D-line including White, Jones, Dotson and Brown-also without Desmond Howard the Pack arguably loses to New England in SB XXXI. I think you've accurately stated that free agency is not a panacea. However, if Favre comes back (and he will to get #420) you have support free agency to get some type of help at WR, TE, RB and Safety, especially in areas where the '07 draft comes up short. In hindsight Woodson and Pickett were great moves in '07 (I recall you were critical of both and lamented the loss of Grady Jackson. Koren Robinson may have been ill-advised-but he at least gave you something to write about. Manuel was pretty crappy, but less so late. So my question is which gaps should the Packers attack in the draft vs. free agency? Is there a tight end out there?
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, I didn't criticize the Woodson signing. I said they overpaid, but agreed it was worth the gamble. And I never criticized the decision to cut ties with Grady. So you're wrong there. No doubt, the '96 Packers benefited from free agency as much as any team that has won a Super Bowl since 1993. But that was because White was free to sign with anyone as the result of the lawsuit, as I recall. Today - not to mention every since '93 - White would never get out of Philadelphia. He'd be tagged as a franchise player. So that will never happen again. Take White and Favre out of the equation and the Packers don't win in '96, regardless of all the other signings. Now, jump ahead to 2007, Favre is 37 and on the final hole or two of his career if he plays again at all and there's no White on the roster or available in free agency. So even if the Packers signed the best three available free agents come March, my guess is that they still wouldn't have a shot at winning the Super Bowl. The reality is that it's going to take time to complete the rebuilding and it could be a long time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: gene of chicago - Thanks for taking my question, Cliff. Do you think that a team such as Indianapolis, with a mediocre run defense, would be willing to give up their bottom-first-round pick for Cullen Jenkins?
A: Cliff Christl - I doubt it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Cherokee Bob of Yemassee, South Carolina - Cliff- I was very interested in how the Saints handled the eagles in the play off game. The Saints had the second worst record in the NFL in 2005 and remember how the Packers blew them away in their meeting. On offense, they picked up Drew Brees (great move)and drafted a real sleeper in Marques Colston. Reggie Bush is an exciting player but Duce McCallister was the horse last Saturday. Keep in mind he's about the same vintage as Green. On defense the Saints showed a great pass rush that the Packers can only dream about and in general pressured Garcia all day. So what is the difference between 2-14 and the NFC Championship game and 4-12 and 8-8? Coaching perhaps and/or a better front office?
A: Cliff Christl - I think the acquisition of a good qb in Brees is a big factor. He manages a game and doesn't make costly mistakes. And the guy he replaced, Aaron Brooks, was a disaster. But I still think the biggest difference is Reggie Bush. I realize his stats don't necessarily stand out. But I think he opens up things for every other player. He's capable of making plays that nobody else can make, so opposing teams seem to design their defenses based on whether he's in the game or where he's lined up. Take nothing away from McAllister or Colston or any of the others, but I think Bush makes them better players. One or two special players can make that much difference. It's not a team game. It's a game of stars and playmakers, even more so than the NBA. The Colts and Patriots probably wouldn't even have a winning record if not for their qbs. The same for the Bears without Urlacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Steve of Lansing - Cliff, The 1974 Falcons 3-11 and scored 111 points in 14 games. Their QB's had a combined TD/INT ratio of 4 to 31. One of their few victories was a 10-3 affair over the Packers. Is it true that prior to this game you were known around Green Bay as a notorious "glass half full" guy? Was this about the time Bart Starr banned you from you from the team charter?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it was a year or two after that season. If you knew your Packer history, you'd know that Dan Devine was the coach in '74, not Starr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom of Milw - Cliff - Too many guys get inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Agree or disagree?
A: Cliff Christl - Agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: E of East Side - Cliff, I asked if Bubba could rebound his game for G.B. in '07 or should he be sent packing last chat. You stated that Bubba was hurt by G.B. in off season by money and what not. But never answered if you think he should/will be back. What do you think? P.S. Not trying to be a wise a**.
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't say Bubba was hurt by the negotiations. You're misquoting me. I think Bubba is an average tight end and always has been. Maybe he's lost it, but I don't see any reason to not bring him back to camp next year. Who else do the Packers have?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: HeavyD of Caledonia - Hi Cliff, one of the Milwaukee Sports radio stations is fueling the rumor that TT is talking to AD about RM (Randy Moss). I have to believe and hope this is pure fiction. I just don't see the Packers adding a cancer like Moss to a roster full of young players. Please tell us that this will never happen.
A: Cliff Christl - I doubt if it will happen for cost reasons. But if the price was right, I think Thompson might consider it. Why not? Moss at least was a great talent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of Milwaukee - Cliff, I am happy to inform you that of all the Journal Sentinel sport hacks (Hunt, Edlund, McGinn), you easily are the most nauseating. I am not sure what it is. It could be your smug photo, the fact you wear (or wore) an earing well into your 50's, or your post-game chats where you attempt to use wit (which you have none) to appear to know more than the casual fan. Truth is: you don't!!! Any bozo who respects your opinion needs a serious flogging.
A: Cliff Christl - But you apparently read us and you're participating in this chat. So who gets the last laugh? Speaking only for myself, I don't care that you don't like me. If I met you, I'm guessing I wouldn't like you, either. Also, I still wear an earring. One of the reasons I wear it is to annoy people like you. I view those who judge people on what they wear the same way I do a speck of dirt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dan Pabich of Irvine, CA - Keep up the good work Cliff. Love the chats. I haven't participated a whole lot, but I've read every one of them. Question: My son and I were going over some all-time NFL records. One intriguing area is interceptions. The all-time record was set in 1952 (14) by Night Train Lane. Next is 13 by 3 guys - the most recent by Lester Hayes, the other two were in 1948 and 1950! Over the last decade or two, no one has come close to breaking the mark. This year Bailey and Samuel picked just 10. In your opinion, why aren't there more guys getting picks, given today's prevalent passing games and today's presumably faster, stronger, quicker athletes?
A: Cliff Christl - I'm guessing that if you looked at interception totals for the league back then, they'd be much higher per attempt. Less emphasis was placed on avoiding turnovers. Plus, teams seem to shy away from throwing at great corners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Milwaukee - Cliff, many of the mock drafts have the Pack taking RB Marshawn Lynch from Cal. Could the Pack be looking to do something similar to the current Dillon-Maroney situation the Pats have going? Also, I was wondering if you had any stats on which position provides the most success from first round picks. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I guess teams hit on running backs more than any other position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joe Johnson of Kentucky - Cliff, You grumpy old cuss, what do you want to talk about? I want you to talk about the positives and negatives of our team in terms of position analysis. If that concept is going to elicit a negative response from you, please talk about something else.
A: Cliff Christl - I'll repeat from what I've written before. For the Packers to return to the Super Bowl, they'll need at least one great player if it's a quarterback and two or three if it's not. They'll need players the caliber of a young Favre and Reggie White near his prime. It doesn't matter which position, although it doesn't do any good to have a great receiver and no qb. So I think they could draft at any position. The problem is the odds are against them getting a great player at No. 16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Arnie of St. Paul, MN - Here in Minnesota the media and viking fans seem to think the failure of Randall McDaniel to even make the final round of HOF voting was a great a travesty. Here people seem to think McDaniel was the one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, guard(s) to ever play the game. I don't know about his standing among the greats but I definitely believe McDaniel belongs in the Hall. I mean he's at least as good as Gary Zimmerman. Anyways as you are a long term watcher of the NFC North/Central and also someone involved in HOF voting I was just wondering about your thoughts on McDaniels HOF worthiness.
A: Cliff Christl - I was surprised, too, that McDaniel didn't make it to the final round. Maybe Bruce Matthews' presence on the ballot hurt McDaniel. Of the two, I think Matthews was definitely the better player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Wil of Las Vegas from Kenosha - Hi Cliff! Thanks, as always, for doing these chats! Couple of quick observations, then a question. First, congrats for Driver and Kampman for All-NFC honors to go with the Pro Bowl. Nothing flashy about these two, just hard-nosed, quality football players. Glad to see substance (Driver) over style(?) (T.O.). Second, I like that the coaching roster remains intact, less Jeff Jads 9sp). Obviously, one good year does not guarantee future success, but at least the players will be hearing familiar messages and strategy, and hopefully will improve through refining their techniques vs. trying to learn someone else's philosophies. :last comment, hopefully everyone calms down about draft speculation until AFTER the combine. Player ranking fluctuate greatly after the top 3-5, and GBs needs are pretty apparent in 5 areas (RB, DB, Safety, TE, & WR, hopefully not QB yet)--and who knows who will be available at pick 16. Ok--the question is this--reflecting back on your interviews with GB's players and coaches this past year, did you get the feeling that this group had "fun" together (aka camaraderie) or was it just "business" as usual? I know many various personalities make up a team, especially of 53 players, but I've always believed that if the majority of players get along really well (minimal infighting), that they perform just a little bit better. I know they get paid Millions of $, and are professionals, but just like the workplace, a good/quality environment can go a long way toward achieving better group success. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - My sense was there was good chemistry. I didn't think that was a big problem in '05. Despite a lousy record, the Packers competed to the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Justin D. Hein of Sacramento, CA - Who was the worst NFL MVP?
A: Cliff Christl - I'd put Rich Gannon (2002) on the list. Kurt Warner won it in 1999 and 2001; Marshall Faulk in 2000. I thought Faulk was the key to that team all three years. So Warner would be my other choice. Before Gannon and Warner, I'd maybe go back to Brian Sipe in 1980.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joe Fischer of Milwaukee - I will be working tomorrow at 1 PM so I decided to see if submitting a question now would count. Here goes. It appears that NFL coaches are required to give post game press conferences. Why not the refs? Their decisions can have as much influence on the out come of a game as the coaches--sometimes more. In light of the questionable calls that occur in many games, I think it would be interesting to require the Head Referee of every game to also hold a post game press conference. I doubt the control freaks at the NFL would agree, and neither would the refs. Maybe holding it mid week after the refs had time to review tape and the League had an opportunity to "coach" the refs on their answers would be an acceptable compromise. What do you think Cliff?
A: Cliff Christl - The media is allowed to interview the referee upon request. There's a pool reporter in every NFL city that handles that duty. I've been the pool reporter in Green Bay for the past few years or so, and probably have interviewed the referee about three times over controversial calls. But, personally, I don't think their decisions decide that many games. The players do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug of Prairie du Chien - Cliff, why is there so much reluctance to accepting Donald Driver as a star performer. I just read McGinn's article on Pro Bowl selections. And Driver is in very elite company.
A: Cliff Christl - Driver had an outstanding year. He deserved to be a Pro Bowl pick. But I think scouts see the limitations. Before the season, the anonymous scout that grades the Packer talent for McGinn and our paper didn't even have Driver listed as a red player, as I recall. Blues are the best; then reds. Let's face it, Driver isn't a Randy Moss talent or even a Javon Walker talent. But he got as much out of his ability as any receiver in the league last year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Cory of No. St. Paul - I think the packers need a new starting tight end AG resigned and better depth at receiver. Do you agree?
A: Cliff Christl - No question, they need better skill players. During the last off-season, the question I raised in several columns and weblogs was: Who is going to score touchdowns for this team? And that proved to be one of their biggest failings, certainly in the red zone. Unless they get better at those positions, they'll have the same problem next year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Aaron Schauer of Mt. Prospect, IL - What's up Cliff? Thanks for the chats.... As a born and bread Packer fan living in Illinois, let me just tell you that all this bear-love down here is ripping my heart out. What's worse is their youth. Think of the young guys they have playing that are only going too get better... Harris, Berrian, Grossman, Benson, Gould, Brown, Anderson, Tillman, Vasher, even Urlacher's not that old. Packers fans better hope free agency tears this group apart or it's gonna be a looong decade. Anyhow, here's my question... Personally i think Brett is done and he's just waiting for after the Super Bowl to make his announcement so as not to steal the spotlight from the remaining teams. If he does hang 'em up why is it automatically assumed that the Pack will be worse. Trust me - no one's a bigger Favre fan than me (well maybe my wife who carries a picture of him in her wallet, and can't tear herself away from his Prylosec OTC commercials - but that's a story for another day). Correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but wasn't his qb rating like 26th in the league at like 72.5 or something? Isn't it possible that a new qb, no matter how young or inexperienced, might be able to post a higher rating? Heck, if the new guy turns the ball over 5 less times couldn't that mean one more win?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right about Favre's qb rating. But I think it could have been a lot worse with a lesser qb. We'll find out perhaps next year. Just watching the playoffs, I think Favre still matches up against most of the qbs. Not Manning and Brady, but most, if not all, the others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chad of Peoria - Cliff, Thanks for the chats all season long. Appreciate the brutal honesty. Despite the number of young players on the roster, I'd agree that most of the core is rapidly approaching or on the wrong side of 30 (Favre, Woodson, Green, Harris, Tauscher, Clifton, Driver, KGB). My question for you: do you see any young players that have the potential to develop into playmakers? If not, how about guys that could develop into fringe pro-bowl types like some listed above? Early in the season, I interpreted some of your comments as you seemed down on Jennings long term potential because he wasn't a speed guy. There must be more to it than that, right? J. Rice or E. Smith were never burners (I'm not claiming Jennings will ever be in that company... just holding up examples that show speed isn't everything, as both ran in the 4.6-4.7 sec 40s coming out of college but went on to long illustrious Hall of Fame careers). Thanks again!
A: Cliff Christl - I think if there's one young player that could be a perennial Pro Bowl pick it would be Hawk. Whether he's a guy that will be able to lead a Super Bowl caliber defense, I'm not sure. You're right about Rice and Smith. And speed isn't everything. But Rice was a first-round pick. I'm guessing somebody had a better 40 time, at least comparatively speaking going back to the year he came out, than they did on Jennings last spring. Plus, Rice was bigger. I think Jennings can be a highly productive receiver. I just think there's a ceiling there based on watching him in camp. Special players usually jump out as special players. Jennings jumped out to a degree, but not to that degree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Wrightstown - Cliff, If I've learned one thing in the playoffs, it's that all that gnashing of teeth last spring over losing Ryan Longwell was utterly wasted. Thompson clearly made the wise call....don't draft kickers high....and don't give kickers more than they're worth. You could argue Green Bay, Chicago and New England all followed the same route and got roughly the same--very good results
A: Cliff Christl - Good point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joy Chu Matella of Mansion, Illinois - I live in Bear land, and its painful to endure the glee of the fans here, even though I don't hate the Bears like many of my Green Bay friends do. They may be better fans than me, I don't know. Anyway, my question has to do with the Bear Packer rivalry. Who was the better team at their peak-the 85 Bears or the 96 Packers. The packers had the qb and defensive end, the bears had the linebackers. I think it would be a great game with the impact of Howard, Reggie and Brett carrying the day. What do you think? And the Bears still *#&@ (rhymes with luck).
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. I think I'd take the '85 Bears. That defense was as good as any I've seen except for maybe the Pittsburgh teams in the 1970s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Custer of Washington, DC - Cliff: Can we call Donald Driver a play maker yet or does he still fall short in your eyes?
A: Cliff Christl - He was the Packers' primary playmaker this year. And if he's your primary playmaker, I think you're going to be 8-8 at best. Look at the four teams left and their No. 1 playmakers: Manning, Brady, Urlacher and either Brees or Bush depending on your point of view. Manning and Brady might be the two best players in the league. Urlacher is up there with the best defensive players, if not No. 1. That's what you need to win Super Bowls: Great players, not just very good ones. I remember an old scout telling me that only five or six players in the entire league decided the Super Bowl each year. I think this is one of those years. I think the three best players were Manning, Tomlinson and Brady; and I think their teams had the best shot, along with Baltimore. Two of them are still alive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: WILL POULIOT of GLADSTONE, MI - Cliff, What's the real motive behind the promotion of Winston Moss. Was he the reason for the D turnaround?
A: Cliff Christl - I think to reward a good young coach, to give him a chance to improve his resume and to guard against losing him to another team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mr. Know-It-All of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hey Cliff, It sure was a nice change to see two Packers who were just given big contracts (Driver & Kampman as opposed to Freeman & Johnson, for example) step up and have their best seasons. By all accounts, both of those guys are hard workers and true professionals in the approach they take to their jobs. By all accounts, so is Al Harris. He's continued to do his job at a high level, why not give him his extension and a raise? It would be an excellent lesson for the many young players on that team to see three veteran leaders be rewarded financially for doing things the right way.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. And because they're so thin at cornerback, I don't think they have any other choice. But my guess is that Harris could lose it quickly. He's 32. His speed is marginal. He can only play one way: Physical, press, man coverage. If he loses that ability, loses a step, he's done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug of Sioux Falls, SD - Cliff, Thanks for the chat. Had a question about Football, and the "corporate ladder". Green Bay followed the lead of Denver, by having a Assistant Head Coach--Defense, and also a Defensive Coordinator. Seems like a strange pecking order to sift through. My question is this; Who's in charge? Let's say there is a game plan being formulated, and those two positions have a disagreement about what to do--does the DC win out over the linebackers coach, but lose out to the Asst Head Coach Defense? Let's say it's a crucial time in the game--for the sake of argument, let's call it 4th and 26. The DC calls for an all out blitz, while the linebackers coach believes in a quarters coverage with regular pressure. Does the Asst. Head coach intervene? Help! I can't seem to follow the power chart here.
A: Cliff Christl - In Green Bay, I think Sanders will have final say. As I recall, Herm Edwards was assistant head coach in Tampa Bay when Monte Kiffin was D-coordinator. Kiffin ran the defense. Bates is going to run the defense in Denver. And the Broncos probably gave him that title because they know how much he wants to become a head coach. But usually, I think, the assistant head coach assists the head coach with administrative duties, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joel of Milwaukee - If you were to make a wild guess, do you think Favre will return in 2007?
A: Cliff Christl - It's just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if he retired. I think he felt like he accomplished something this past season. Being the competitor he is, I think it would have been tougher for him to walk away last year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Powerball of Texas - Cliff- Do you get a lot of e-mails/questions that take personal potshots at you and do other writers get the same treatment. Seems like a God awful waste of time and how does that even relate to finding out more about the Packers. That earlier rip in the chat was a waste of time on someone's part. Anyhow my question is along the Grady Jackson lines. I think Jackson was talented, but from articles written, it was apparent he was never going to be a high work ethic guy. In fact it seemed like he was a talented but lazy type of player from what was written. If nothing else, Thompson seems to have a tremendous disdain for that type of attitude or player. Does Thompson appear to you to also place a premium on what a guys pure outlook and demeanor is along with work ethic (K. Robinson aside....that one still puzzles me). But Thompson seemed to clean house thoroughly. I couldn't see a C. Hunt player on his roster under any circumstance. Does character and attitude mean as much to a teams success as a fan would like to think. I mean I look at the Bengals talented but headcase roster and I felt all along that a team like that would implode. I mean it's a roster of idiots. Does character matter in the NFL in terms of success.
A: Cliff Christl - As for my email, I get my occasional gripes and complaints and foam-at-the-mouth rants. And I agree answering that guy's question was a waste of time. But I take potshots at people, so I believe I should give people the opportunity to take potshots at me. Maybe these chats would be better served if I didn't. But those people don't bother me. I just figure he's some anonymous nerd and I have no desire to want him to like me. In fact, I'm glad he doesn't. That said, I want to make something clear. The vast majority of my email and almost all the fans who approach me in public seem to be sincere, well meaning, good people. I think you can assume that about the people on this chat. They're just avid Packer fans with a great desire to learn as much as they can about the team. They don't always agree with me and I have no problem with that. But they're not know-it-alls, either. Just sincere, nice people. Back to football. I think more people in the NFL are putting a premium on character. Let's face it, there isn't much that separates the bottom 10, 20, 30, 40 players on a roster. As Seattle showed in the playoffs, you can pick people off the street who can play as well as your fringe players and even some of your starters. So why put up with players who are pains in the butt? For example, I'm just picking two names here: Ben Taylor and Junius Coston come across as good, high character guys. So why not keep someone like that instead of a Torrance Marshall type? With Grady Jackson, he didn't want to practice. He was usually hurt. He had some money problems. He seemed like a good guy. But why put up with the problems when you've got a Colin Cole who might not be quite as good, but is more reliable and certainly capable of playing 20 to 25 snaps a game with comparable production. As for Ted Thompson, remember, he was that kind of player himself. That's how he lasted as long as he did. So he probably has an appreciation for that type of player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: B. R. Janisch of Lake City, SD - Cliff, the 2 biggest criticisms of Ted Thompson were his unwillingness to re-sign Mike Wahle and letting the Javon Walker contract situation fester until Walker wanted an unconditional divorce from the Packers. In hindsight do you feel that because of the cap issues in bringing Wahle back that it was just a slight bump in the road? By that I mean that yes, Wahle was desperately missed in 2005 but because of his departure the Packers were forced to address their offensive line in the 2006 draft and did ok with their selections. Do you feel that if Walker had had any other agent other than Drew Rosenhuas the situation would have been salvageable? While TT was able to maneuver and get extra picks and decent players with the Walker draft pick, the Pack lost its one vertical threat. So in my estimation, TT was 1 for 2 in his calculated gambles. Do you agree.
A: Cliff Christl - You make some good points. Guards just don't have that much value. Look at Steve Hutchinson. He's a Pro Bowl player, but he isn't going to make a difference on a new team as the Vikings discovered this season. The same for Wahle. The problem is that when you lose a solid, core player, you're probably going to have to replace him with a high draft pick. You're not going to get ahead that way. So I think it's a horse apiece as far as Wahle goes. No question, the Packers could use Walker. He was their best young playmaker. And, again, they had to draft Jenninsg to fill his spot. In this day and age, you can't afford to keep losing good, young football players. Let the Sharpers and Riveras walk. But you've got to keep the Tauschers and Drivers and Kampmans and others or you'll just be replenishing every year instead of getting better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Billy of Knoxville - Are the Packers in bad shape if their top 4 WR's in '07 are Driver, Jennings, Martin and Ferguson. (Given that they are all healthy)
A: Cliff Christl - Not necessarily if Jennings makes a big jump. It wouldn't be one of the best units, but if they added some firepower at other positions they could get by. But I'd cut ties with Ferguson unless he has a great camp. I don't see anything there other than mediocre skills. I think Holiday has more upside.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lord Jim of Minneapolis - Kampman is no doubt a great asset to the Packers. But how misled are people by his sack totals this year? Sacks are only part of the equation and totals are sometimes dictated by circumstance. Is he really playing at a Pro Bowl level?
A: Cliff Christl - I think so because he's even better against the run. True, he played against a lot of below average right tackles. But most players get their sacks against weaker opponents or in one-sided games or when teams become one dimensional. Kampman isn't Jason Taylor or Julius Peppers, but any team in the league would take him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of KC - Cliff, I understand your point on the draft, but pick #16 has been charmed of late. Since 2001, Steve Hutchinson, Shaun Andrews, and Troy Polamalu have all gone in the 16 slot.
A: Cliff Christl - True, but only Polamalu would qualify as a difference-maker. He's a defensive playmaker. Hutchinson and Andrews are Pro Bowl players, but they're guards. Most teams wouldn't consider drafting a guard much higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ben G. of Tulsa, OK - Cliff, I appreciate your reporting and insight - thanks. Do you know how coaches measure fatigue of players during the game? By the time a DL asks for a blow, or starts to stand up and dance around instead of collapsing the pocket, it's probably too late. Time of possession is a woefully inadequate statistic. # of plays is better, but there is a vast difference for a DL on 3rd and goal from the 1. This was an important factor in the Philly-NO playoff game. After NO's long first half drives, I knew Philly's vaunted DL would run out of gas by the end of the game. Keep the Baranczyk articles coming, it's my favorite feature!
A: Cliff Christl - Last question. I'm guessing the position coaches pay the closest attention. Some of the substitution is probably planned in advance to make sure fatigue doesn't set in and so players have fresh legs at the end. I think in the case of the Eagles, they were coming off a short week and they didn't stop the run from the get-go. Thus, you're right, they probably were doomed to run out of gas. Had they stopped the run early and gotten off the field more, it might have been different.
A: Cliff Christl - John, your question was posted first. We'll start with you. Yes, the Packers hold the rights to Robinson. And if he stays clean, he'll be able to apply for reinstatement two or three weeks into next season. That means he won't be able to participate in training camp. At Mike McCarthy's post-season press conference, he suggested the Packers weren't planning on Robinson for whatever reason. So we'll see. I know some fans thought Robinson was going to be the savior and it was a great signing, but what did he ever accomplish as a receiver before coming to Green Bay? My opinion is that anybody who thinks he's going to make a difference is living in fantasy land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jamie E. of Milwaukee of thee Wisconsin - Cliff, I know one of your positions is that we should stay with the defensive side of the ball in the draft because we started there last year with Hawk. On the other hand, it is VERY tempting to get Favre another weapon because the playoffs aren't out of the question in the watered-down NFC and it's not out of the question to get on a hot streak in the playoffs as a Wildcard. At the same time, I don't believe Thompson is going to stray too far from his "build with youth through the draft" strategy either. So from what you can determine, what type of offseason moves do you expect the Packers to make (specifically in the 1st round of the draft) or is it too early and Thompson is too unpredictable to tell?
A: Cliff Christl - That's not necessarily my position, but what I think Thompson will do: Build a defense first. Would another weapon help Favre? No doubt. But let's wait and see if Favre returns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave B of Iowa City - Cliff, In reading the JSO season report cards, it seems that one common fault among the Packers Defense is the Linebackers' seeming ineffectiveness defending the pass. Do you think this is because of talent (personnel), inexperience, scheme, or coaching? On the surface, this seems to be a decent young group, but do you think they have the ability to improve in that area, or should they consider letting Barnett move on and rebuilding the group around Hawk?
A: Cliff Christl - No. 1, I don't think it's uncommon for linebackers to get beat in coverage. That's in large part why teams run so much play action: To get linebackers to bite against the run and pass over them. So I'm guessing most teams have the same lament. Barnett and Hawk have more speed than most linebackers and that's a plus. Why would you get rid of one of them? I don't think Poppinga will ever be a cover guy, but if he plays the run well and sits in passing situations, you live with him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: James Walker of Racine - If the Packers go offense in the draft, do we take Lynch, Meachem, or Jarrett? Lynch is projected as the 2nd best RB, but will probably have the best overall career if Peterson isn't durable. Meachem could be for the Pack what Beckum is for the Badgers as a hybrid TE. And Jarrett has nice size and could easily become a playmaking receiver which we don't have beyond Favre getting the ball to Driver on quick slants.
A: Cliff Christl - Most teams at this point probably don't have a handle on what players are likely to be there and what players they'll pick. I surely don't. Quite frankly, I think speculation on what teams are likely to do in the draft is a waste of time at this point. They haven't even held the combine. Any mock draft you see is nothing more than a wild guess. Put some names on a dart board and fire away. You'd have just as much chance of being right as anyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: charlie hayes of fair haven, nj - cliff, indulge me. it's round 1. as gm you have a choice between playmakers of equal ability, a pass catcher and a safety. which way do you go?
A: Cliff Christl - Not many teams draft safeties in the first round. It's just not a priority position. Again, I think it would be a mistake for the Packers to zero in on one position and draft for need. They need great players, regardless of position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Terry of Chicago - Cliff, Any idea on which RB's in draft are better fits for the "zone blocking" scheme the Pack employs? Seems some highly touted ones might not fit, but not sure if some ran that scheme in college. For example, I know Michigan uses it. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I think great running backs can run in any system. If they can't, they're not likely to be worth the 16th pick. It's just football. It's just vision and instincts. It's not science or medicine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Digger of Andover - Hi Cliff; The '07 Vikings support your contention that free agency can become a bad deal, especially when you have a bad QB. However, the '96 Packers go against it since the core of that team, besides Favre and Butler, was made up of free agents: Jackson, Bebee, Robinson, Rison, Ron Cox, not to mention the entire D-line including White, Jones, Dotson and Brown-also without Desmond Howard the Pack arguably loses to New England in SB XXXI. I think you've accurately stated that free agency is not a panacea. However, if Favre comes back (and he will to get #420) you have support free agency to get some type of help at WR, TE, RB and Safety, especially in areas where the '07 draft comes up short. In hindsight Woodson and Pickett were great moves in '07 (I recall you were critical of both and lamented the loss of Grady Jackson. Koren Robinson may have been ill-advised-but he at least gave you something to write about. Manuel was pretty crappy, but less so late. So my question is which gaps should the Packers attack in the draft vs. free agency? Is there a tight end out there?
A: Cliff Christl - First of all, I didn't criticize the Woodson signing. I said they overpaid, but agreed it was worth the gamble. And I never criticized the decision to cut ties with Grady. So you're wrong there. No doubt, the '96 Packers benefited from free agency as much as any team that has won a Super Bowl since 1993. But that was because White was free to sign with anyone as the result of the lawsuit, as I recall. Today - not to mention every since '93 - White would never get out of Philadelphia. He'd be tagged as a franchise player. So that will never happen again. Take White and Favre out of the equation and the Packers don't win in '96, regardless of all the other signings. Now, jump ahead to 2007, Favre is 37 and on the final hole or two of his career if he plays again at all and there's no White on the roster or available in free agency. So even if the Packers signed the best three available free agents come March, my guess is that they still wouldn't have a shot at winning the Super Bowl. The reality is that it's going to take time to complete the rebuilding and it could be a long time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: gene of chicago - Thanks for taking my question, Cliff. Do you think that a team such as Indianapolis, with a mediocre run defense, would be willing to give up their bottom-first-round pick for Cullen Jenkins?
A: Cliff Christl - I doubt it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Cherokee Bob of Yemassee, South Carolina - Cliff- I was very interested in how the Saints handled the eagles in the play off game. The Saints had the second worst record in the NFL in 2005 and remember how the Packers blew them away in their meeting. On offense, they picked up Drew Brees (great move)and drafted a real sleeper in Marques Colston. Reggie Bush is an exciting player but Duce McCallister was the horse last Saturday. Keep in mind he's about the same vintage as Green. On defense the Saints showed a great pass rush that the Packers can only dream about and in general pressured Garcia all day. So what is the difference between 2-14 and the NFC Championship game and 4-12 and 8-8? Coaching perhaps and/or a better front office?
A: Cliff Christl - I think the acquisition of a good qb in Brees is a big factor. He manages a game and doesn't make costly mistakes. And the guy he replaced, Aaron Brooks, was a disaster. But I still think the biggest difference is Reggie Bush. I realize his stats don't necessarily stand out. But I think he opens up things for every other player. He's capable of making plays that nobody else can make, so opposing teams seem to design their defenses based on whether he's in the game or where he's lined up. Take nothing away from McAllister or Colston or any of the others, but I think Bush makes them better players. One or two special players can make that much difference. It's not a team game. It's a game of stars and playmakers, even more so than the NBA. The Colts and Patriots probably wouldn't even have a winning record if not for their qbs. The same for the Bears without Urlacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Steve of Lansing - Cliff, The 1974 Falcons 3-11 and scored 111 points in 14 games. Their QB's had a combined TD/INT ratio of 4 to 31. One of their few victories was a 10-3 affair over the Packers. Is it true that prior to this game you were known around Green Bay as a notorious "glass half full" guy? Was this about the time Bart Starr banned you from you from the team charter?
A: Cliff Christl - I think it was a year or two after that season. If you knew your Packer history, you'd know that Dan Devine was the coach in '74, not Starr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Tom of Milw - Cliff - Too many guys get inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Agree or disagree?
A: Cliff Christl - Agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: E of East Side - Cliff, I asked if Bubba could rebound his game for G.B. in '07 or should he be sent packing last chat. You stated that Bubba was hurt by G.B. in off season by money and what not. But never answered if you think he should/will be back. What do you think? P.S. Not trying to be a wise a**.
A: Cliff Christl - I didn't say Bubba was hurt by the negotiations. You're misquoting me. I think Bubba is an average tight end and always has been. Maybe he's lost it, but I don't see any reason to not bring him back to camp next year. Who else do the Packers have?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: HeavyD of Caledonia - Hi Cliff, one of the Milwaukee Sports radio stations is fueling the rumor that TT is talking to AD about RM (Randy Moss). I have to believe and hope this is pure fiction. I just don't see the Packers adding a cancer like Moss to a roster full of young players. Please tell us that this will never happen.
A: Cliff Christl - I doubt if it will happen for cost reasons. But if the price was right, I think Thompson might consider it. Why not? Moss at least was a great talent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bob of Milwaukee - Cliff, I am happy to inform you that of all the Journal Sentinel sport hacks (Hunt, Edlund, McGinn), you easily are the most nauseating. I am not sure what it is. It could be your smug photo, the fact you wear (or wore) an earing well into your 50's, or your post-game chats where you attempt to use wit (which you have none) to appear to know more than the casual fan. Truth is: you don't!!! Any bozo who respects your opinion needs a serious flogging.
A: Cliff Christl - But you apparently read us and you're participating in this chat. So who gets the last laugh? Speaking only for myself, I don't care that you don't like me. If I met you, I'm guessing I wouldn't like you, either. Also, I still wear an earring. One of the reasons I wear it is to annoy people like you. I view those who judge people on what they wear the same way I do a speck of dirt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dan Pabich of Irvine, CA - Keep up the good work Cliff. Love the chats. I haven't participated a whole lot, but I've read every one of them. Question: My son and I were going over some all-time NFL records. One intriguing area is interceptions. The all-time record was set in 1952 (14) by Night Train Lane. Next is 13 by 3 guys - the most recent by Lester Hayes, the other two were in 1948 and 1950! Over the last decade or two, no one has come close to breaking the mark. This year Bailey and Samuel picked just 10. In your opinion, why aren't there more guys getting picks, given today's prevalent passing games and today's presumably faster, stronger, quicker athletes?
A: Cliff Christl - I'm guessing that if you looked at interception totals for the league back then, they'd be much higher per attempt. Less emphasis was placed on avoiding turnovers. Plus, teams seem to shy away from throwing at great corners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Milwaukee - Cliff, many of the mock drafts have the Pack taking RB Marshawn Lynch from Cal. Could the Pack be looking to do something similar to the current Dillon-Maroney situation the Pats have going? Also, I was wondering if you had any stats on which position provides the most success from first round picks. Thanks.
A: Cliff Christl - I guess teams hit on running backs more than any other position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joe Johnson of Kentucky - Cliff, You grumpy old cuss, what do you want to talk about? I want you to talk about the positives and negatives of our team in terms of position analysis. If that concept is going to elicit a negative response from you, please talk about something else.
A: Cliff Christl - I'll repeat from what I've written before. For the Packers to return to the Super Bowl, they'll need at least one great player if it's a quarterback and two or three if it's not. They'll need players the caliber of a young Favre and Reggie White near his prime. It doesn't matter which position, although it doesn't do any good to have a great receiver and no qb. So I think they could draft at any position. The problem is the odds are against them getting a great player at No. 16.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Arnie of St. Paul, MN - Here in Minnesota the media and viking fans seem to think the failure of Randall McDaniel to even make the final round of HOF voting was a great a travesty. Here people seem to think McDaniel was the one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, guard(s) to ever play the game. I don't know about his standing among the greats but I definitely believe McDaniel belongs in the Hall. I mean he's at least as good as Gary Zimmerman. Anyways as you are a long term watcher of the NFC North/Central and also someone involved in HOF voting I was just wondering about your thoughts on McDaniels HOF worthiness.
A: Cliff Christl - I was surprised, too, that McDaniel didn't make it to the final round. Maybe Bruce Matthews' presence on the ballot hurt McDaniel. Of the two, I think Matthews was definitely the better player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Wil of Las Vegas from Kenosha - Hi Cliff! Thanks, as always, for doing these chats! Couple of quick observations, then a question. First, congrats for Driver and Kampman for All-NFC honors to go with the Pro Bowl. Nothing flashy about these two, just hard-nosed, quality football players. Glad to see substance (Driver) over style(?) (T.O.). Second, I like that the coaching roster remains intact, less Jeff Jads 9sp). Obviously, one good year does not guarantee future success, but at least the players will be hearing familiar messages and strategy, and hopefully will improve through refining their techniques vs. trying to learn someone else's philosophies. :last comment, hopefully everyone calms down about draft speculation until AFTER the combine. Player ranking fluctuate greatly after the top 3-5, and GBs needs are pretty apparent in 5 areas (RB, DB, Safety, TE, & WR, hopefully not QB yet)--and who knows who will be available at pick 16. Ok--the question is this--reflecting back on your interviews with GB's players and coaches this past year, did you get the feeling that this group had "fun" together (aka camaraderie) or was it just "business" as usual? I know many various personalities make up a team, especially of 53 players, but I've always believed that if the majority of players get along really well (minimal infighting), that they perform just a little bit better. I know they get paid Millions of $, and are professionals, but just like the workplace, a good/quality environment can go a long way toward achieving better group success. Your thoughts?
A: Cliff Christl - My sense was there was good chemistry. I didn't think that was a big problem in '05. Despite a lousy record, the Packers competed to the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Justin D. Hein of Sacramento, CA - Who was the worst NFL MVP?
A: Cliff Christl - I'd put Rich Gannon (2002) on the list. Kurt Warner won it in 1999 and 2001; Marshall Faulk in 2000. I thought Faulk was the key to that team all three years. So Warner would be my other choice. Before Gannon and Warner, I'd maybe go back to Brian Sipe in 1980.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joe Fischer of Milwaukee - I will be working tomorrow at 1 PM so I decided to see if submitting a question now would count. Here goes. It appears that NFL coaches are required to give post game press conferences. Why not the refs? Their decisions can have as much influence on the out come of a game as the coaches--sometimes more. In light of the questionable calls that occur in many games, I think it would be interesting to require the Head Referee of every game to also hold a post game press conference. I doubt the control freaks at the NFL would agree, and neither would the refs. Maybe holding it mid week after the refs had time to review tape and the League had an opportunity to "coach" the refs on their answers would be an acceptable compromise. What do you think Cliff?
A: Cliff Christl - The media is allowed to interview the referee upon request. There's a pool reporter in every NFL city that handles that duty. I've been the pool reporter in Green Bay for the past few years or so, and probably have interviewed the referee about three times over controversial calls. But, personally, I don't think their decisions decide that many games. The players do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug of Prairie du Chien - Cliff, why is there so much reluctance to accepting Donald Driver as a star performer. I just read McGinn's article on Pro Bowl selections. And Driver is in very elite company.
A: Cliff Christl - Driver had an outstanding year. He deserved to be a Pro Bowl pick. But I think scouts see the limitations. Before the season, the anonymous scout that grades the Packer talent for McGinn and our paper didn't even have Driver listed as a red player, as I recall. Blues are the best; then reds. Let's face it, Driver isn't a Randy Moss talent or even a Javon Walker talent. But he got as much out of his ability as any receiver in the league last year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Cory of No. St. Paul - I think the packers need a new starting tight end AG resigned and better depth at receiver. Do you agree?
A: Cliff Christl - No question, they need better skill players. During the last off-season, the question I raised in several columns and weblogs was: Who is going to score touchdowns for this team? And that proved to be one of their biggest failings, certainly in the red zone. Unless they get better at those positions, they'll have the same problem next year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Aaron Schauer of Mt. Prospect, IL - What's up Cliff? Thanks for the chats.... As a born and bread Packer fan living in Illinois, let me just tell you that all this bear-love down here is ripping my heart out. What's worse is their youth. Think of the young guys they have playing that are only going too get better... Harris, Berrian, Grossman, Benson, Gould, Brown, Anderson, Tillman, Vasher, even Urlacher's not that old. Packers fans better hope free agency tears this group apart or it's gonna be a looong decade. Anyhow, here's my question... Personally i think Brett is done and he's just waiting for after the Super Bowl to make his announcement so as not to steal the spotlight from the remaining teams. If he does hang 'em up why is it automatically assumed that the Pack will be worse. Trust me - no one's a bigger Favre fan than me (well maybe my wife who carries a picture of him in her wallet, and can't tear herself away from his Prylosec OTC commercials - but that's a story for another day). Correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but wasn't his qb rating like 26th in the league at like 72.5 or something? Isn't it possible that a new qb, no matter how young or inexperienced, might be able to post a higher rating? Heck, if the new guy turns the ball over 5 less times couldn't that mean one more win?
A: Cliff Christl - You're right about Favre's qb rating. But I think it could have been a lot worse with a lesser qb. We'll find out perhaps next year. Just watching the playoffs, I think Favre still matches up against most of the qbs. Not Manning and Brady, but most, if not all, the others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Chad of Peoria - Cliff, Thanks for the chats all season long. Appreciate the brutal honesty. Despite the number of young players on the roster, I'd agree that most of the core is rapidly approaching or on the wrong side of 30 (Favre, Woodson, Green, Harris, Tauscher, Clifton, Driver, KGB). My question for you: do you see any young players that have the potential to develop into playmakers? If not, how about guys that could develop into fringe pro-bowl types like some listed above? Early in the season, I interpreted some of your comments as you seemed down on Jennings long term potential because he wasn't a speed guy. There must be more to it than that, right? J. Rice or E. Smith were never burners (I'm not claiming Jennings will ever be in that company... just holding up examples that show speed isn't everything, as both ran in the 4.6-4.7 sec 40s coming out of college but went on to long illustrious Hall of Fame careers). Thanks again!
A: Cliff Christl - I think if there's one young player that could be a perennial Pro Bowl pick it would be Hawk. Whether he's a guy that will be able to lead a Super Bowl caliber defense, I'm not sure. You're right about Rice and Smith. And speed isn't everything. But Rice was a first-round pick. I'm guessing somebody had a better 40 time, at least comparatively speaking going back to the year he came out, than they did on Jennings last spring. Plus, Rice was bigger. I think Jennings can be a highly productive receiver. I just think there's a ceiling there based on watching him in camp. Special players usually jump out as special players. Jennings jumped out to a degree, but not to that degree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Dave of Wrightstown - Cliff, If I've learned one thing in the playoffs, it's that all that gnashing of teeth last spring over losing Ryan Longwell was utterly wasted. Thompson clearly made the wise call....don't draft kickers high....and don't give kickers more than they're worth. You could argue Green Bay, Chicago and New England all followed the same route and got roughly the same--very good results
A: Cliff Christl - Good point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joy Chu Matella of Mansion, Illinois - I live in Bear land, and its painful to endure the glee of the fans here, even though I don't hate the Bears like many of my Green Bay friends do. They may be better fans than me, I don't know. Anyway, my question has to do with the Bear Packer rivalry. Who was the better team at their peak-the 85 Bears or the 96 Packers. The packers had the qb and defensive end, the bears had the linebackers. I think it would be a great game with the impact of Howard, Reggie and Brett carrying the day. What do you think? And the Bears still *#&@ (rhymes with luck).
A: Cliff Christl - Good question. I think I'd take the '85 Bears. That defense was as good as any I've seen except for maybe the Pittsburgh teams in the 1970s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Jeff Custer of Washington, DC - Cliff: Can we call Donald Driver a play maker yet or does he still fall short in your eyes?
A: Cliff Christl - He was the Packers' primary playmaker this year. And if he's your primary playmaker, I think you're going to be 8-8 at best. Look at the four teams left and their No. 1 playmakers: Manning, Brady, Urlacher and either Brees or Bush depending on your point of view. Manning and Brady might be the two best players in the league. Urlacher is up there with the best defensive players, if not No. 1. That's what you need to win Super Bowls: Great players, not just very good ones. I remember an old scout telling me that only five or six players in the entire league decided the Super Bowl each year. I think this is one of those years. I think the three best players were Manning, Tomlinson and Brady; and I think their teams had the best shot, along with Baltimore. Two of them are still alive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: WILL POULIOT of GLADSTONE, MI - Cliff, What's the real motive behind the promotion of Winston Moss. Was he the reason for the D turnaround?
A: Cliff Christl - I think to reward a good young coach, to give him a chance to improve his resume and to guard against losing him to another team.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Mr. Know-It-All of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hey Cliff, It sure was a nice change to see two Packers who were just given big contracts (Driver & Kampman as opposed to Freeman & Johnson, for example) step up and have their best seasons. By all accounts, both of those guys are hard workers and true professionals in the approach they take to their jobs. By all accounts, so is Al Harris. He's continued to do his job at a high level, why not give him his extension and a raise? It would be an excellent lesson for the many young players on that team to see three veteran leaders be rewarded financially for doing things the right way.
A: Cliff Christl - I agree. And because they're so thin at cornerback, I don't think they have any other choice. But my guess is that Harris could lose it quickly. He's 32. His speed is marginal. He can only play one way: Physical, press, man coverage. If he loses that ability, loses a step, he's done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Doug of Sioux Falls, SD - Cliff, Thanks for the chat. Had a question about Football, and the "corporate ladder". Green Bay followed the lead of Denver, by having a Assistant Head Coach--Defense, and also a Defensive Coordinator. Seems like a strange pecking order to sift through. My question is this; Who's in charge? Let's say there is a game plan being formulated, and those two positions have a disagreement about what to do--does the DC win out over the linebackers coach, but lose out to the Asst Head Coach Defense? Let's say it's a crucial time in the game--for the sake of argument, let's call it 4th and 26. The DC calls for an all out blitz, while the linebackers coach believes in a quarters coverage with regular pressure. Does the Asst. Head coach intervene? Help! I can't seem to follow the power chart here.
A: Cliff Christl - In Green Bay, I think Sanders will have final say. As I recall, Herm Edwards was assistant head coach in Tampa Bay when Monte Kiffin was D-coordinator. Kiffin ran the defense. Bates is going to run the defense in Denver. And the Broncos probably gave him that title because they know how much he wants to become a head coach. But usually, I think, the assistant head coach assists the head coach with administrative duties, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Joel of Milwaukee - If you were to make a wild guess, do you think Favre will return in 2007?
A: Cliff Christl - It's just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if he retired. I think he felt like he accomplished something this past season. Being the competitor he is, I think it would have been tougher for him to walk away last year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Powerball of Texas - Cliff- Do you get a lot of e-mails/questions that take personal potshots at you and do other writers get the same treatment. Seems like a God awful waste of time and how does that even relate to finding out more about the Packers. That earlier rip in the chat was a waste of time on someone's part. Anyhow my question is along the Grady Jackson lines. I think Jackson was talented, but from articles written, it was apparent he was never going to be a high work ethic guy. In fact it seemed like he was a talented but lazy type of player from what was written. If nothing else, Thompson seems to have a tremendous disdain for that type of attitude or player. Does Thompson appear to you to also place a premium on what a guys pure outlook and demeanor is along with work ethic (K. Robinson aside....that one still puzzles me). But Thompson seemed to clean house thoroughly. I couldn't see a C. Hunt player on his roster under any circumstance. Does character and attitude mean as much to a teams success as a fan would like to think. I mean I look at the Bengals talented but headcase roster and I felt all along that a team like that would implode. I mean it's a roster of idiots. Does character matter in the NFL in terms of success.
A: Cliff Christl - As for my email, I get my occasional gripes and complaints and foam-at-the-mouth rants. And I agree answering that guy's question was a waste of time. But I take potshots at people, so I believe I should give people the opportunity to take potshots at me. Maybe these chats would be better served if I didn't. But those people don't bother me. I just figure he's some anonymous nerd and I have no desire to want him to like me. In fact, I'm glad he doesn't. That said, I want to make something clear. The vast majority of my email and almost all the fans who approach me in public seem to be sincere, well meaning, good people. I think you can assume that about the people on this chat. They're just avid Packer fans with a great desire to learn as much as they can about the team. They don't always agree with me and I have no problem with that. But they're not know-it-alls, either. Just sincere, nice people. Back to football. I think more people in the NFL are putting a premium on character. Let's face it, there isn't much that separates the bottom 10, 20, 30, 40 players on a roster. As Seattle showed in the playoffs, you can pick people off the street who can play as well as your fringe players and even some of your starters. So why put up with players who are pains in the butt? For example, I'm just picking two names here: Ben Taylor and Junius Coston come across as good, high character guys. So why not keep someone like that instead of a Torrance Marshall type? With Grady Jackson, he didn't want to practice. He was usually hurt. He had some money problems. He seemed like a good guy. But why put up with the problems when you've got a Colin Cole who might not be quite as good, but is more reliable and certainly capable of playing 20 to 25 snaps a game with comparable production. As for Ted Thompson, remember, he was that kind of player himself. That's how he lasted as long as he did. So he probably has an appreciation for that type of player.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: B. R. Janisch of Lake City, SD - Cliff, the 2 biggest criticisms of Ted Thompson were his unwillingness to re-sign Mike Wahle and letting the Javon Walker contract situation fester until Walker wanted an unconditional divorce from the Packers. In hindsight do you feel that because of the cap issues in bringing Wahle back that it was just a slight bump in the road? By that I mean that yes, Wahle was desperately missed in 2005 but because of his departure the Packers were forced to address their offensive line in the 2006 draft and did ok with their selections. Do you feel that if Walker had had any other agent other than Drew Rosenhuas the situation would have been salvageable? While TT was able to maneuver and get extra picks and decent players with the Walker draft pick, the Pack lost its one vertical threat. So in my estimation, TT was 1 for 2 in his calculated gambles. Do you agree.
A: Cliff Christl - You make some good points. Guards just don't have that much value. Look at Steve Hutchinson. He's a Pro Bowl player, but he isn't going to make a difference on a new team as the Vikings discovered this season. The same for Wahle. The problem is that when you lose a solid, core player, you're probably going to have to replace him with a high draft pick. You're not going to get ahead that way. So I think it's a horse apiece as far as Wahle goes. No question, the Packers could use Walker. He was their best young playmaker. And, again, they had to draft Jenninsg to fill his spot. In this day and age, you can't afford to keep losing good, young football players. Let the Sharpers and Riveras walk. But you've got to keep the Tauschers and Drivers and Kampmans and others or you'll just be replenishing every year instead of getting better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Billy of Knoxville - Are the Packers in bad shape if their top 4 WR's in '07 are Driver, Jennings, Martin and Ferguson. (Given that they are all healthy)
A: Cliff Christl - Not necessarily if Jennings makes a big jump. It wouldn't be one of the best units, but if they added some firepower at other positions they could get by. But I'd cut ties with Ferguson unless he has a great camp. I don't see anything there other than mediocre skills. I think Holiday has more upside.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Lord Jim of Minneapolis - Kampman is no doubt a great asset to the Packers. But how misled are people by his sack totals this year? Sacks are only part of the equation and totals are sometimes dictated by circumstance. Is he really playing at a Pro Bowl level?
A: Cliff Christl - I think so because he's even better against the run. True, he played against a lot of below average right tackles. But most players get their sacks against weaker opponents or in one-sided games or when teams become one dimensional. Kampman isn't Jason Taylor or Julius Peppers, but any team in the league would take him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Bill of KC - Cliff, I understand your point on the draft, but pick #16 has been charmed of late. Since 2001, Steve Hutchinson, Shaun Andrews, and Troy Polamalu have all gone in the 16 slot.
A: Cliff Christl - True, but only Polamalu would qualify as a difference-maker. He's a defensive playmaker. Hutchinson and Andrews are Pro Bowl players, but they're guards. Most teams wouldn't consider drafting a guard much higher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Ben G. of Tulsa, OK - Cliff, I appreciate your reporting and insight - thanks. Do you know how coaches measure fatigue of players during the game? By the time a DL asks for a blow, or starts to stand up and dance around instead of collapsing the pocket, it's probably too late. Time of possession is a woefully inadequate statistic. # of plays is better, but there is a vast difference for a DL on 3rd and goal from the 1. This was an important factor in the Philly-NO playoff game. After NO's long first half drives, I knew Philly's vaunted DL would run out of gas by the end of the game. Keep the Baranczyk articles coming, it's my favorite feature!
A: Cliff Christl - Last question. I'm guessing the position coaches pay the closest attention. Some of the substitution is probably planned in advance to make sure fatigue doesn't set in and so players have fresh legs at the end. I think in the case of the Eagles, they were coming off a short week and they didn't stop the run from the get-go. Thus, you're right, they probably were doomed to run out of gas. Had they stopped the run early and gotten off the field more, it might have been different.